#9. #Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4


For two weeks, I learned the concept of copyright and how it works. I thought of copyright only as a "right to protect his or her own creations." But much more complex understanding and value intertwined than I thought. Also, it was surprising that Wikipedia, which thought of itself as a simple open communication, was able to build content on a demanding process and strict criteria.

The sentences left impressively in the article are as follows. A common feature of online communities operating under an ethos of open and egalitarian values is frustration with the coexistence of group decision making and seemingly contrary forms of autocratic authority. It seems to Wikipedia have the characteristics of duality, open but not open, closed but not closed. Wikipedia gives anyone the opportunity to post posts, but it doesn't adopt everything. It also uses the system to screen, warn, and delete. It is impressive to describe this as a dictatorship. It is a democracy, but there seems to be an unknown attraction like communism


Discussion
: There will be countless copyrighted content at the moment. Content will also vary from videos to music to personal pictures. Do you think the quality of small and large copyrights is the same? For example, there is a small picture and music of an individual


Comments

  1. KIM BYEORI 김벼리May 5, 2019 at 7:31 AM

    I think the small and large quality of copyright is not the same. In the case of large copyrights, the use of them is also paid more and more costly. Also, when copyrights are copyrights of famous songwriters, these copyrights are more valuable than those of lesser-known songwriters.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4

Discuss Reagle’s chapters 3-4 I read the Reagle's chapters 3-4. I find two opinion. One thing is how to collaborate people on Wikipedia. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. How to collaborate people on Wikipedia. In the case of the English Wikipedia, there is a collaborative culture that asks its participants to assume two postures: a stance of neutral point of view on matters of knowledge, and a stance of good faith toward one’s fellow contributors. I think that people know the mood that must keep the rule on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia's mood is light, people write the light writing. Other is how to make open community on Wikipedia. I remember the discussion that Why the Women is smaller that the men on Wikipedia. I've heard from others the reason that women don't use it much because the community isn't friendly to women. I think that we try to create Wikipedia to use all the people no matter that the sex. I think it's a process ...
Read more

Discuss Reagle's Chapter3-4

In  the Reagle  Chapter 3-4, the troll and the ignore rules were impressive.  Troll is the one who destroys teamwork and leads the team to ruin.  Trolls, which are negative characters, help develop Wikipedia. Wikipedia finds the wrong information generated by the troll. And the information is modified by others. In that process, it results in more information production. There is an outlaw, similar to a troll. The lawless ignores all regulations, including copyright and reference. Like Trolls, they help develop Wikipedia. They are free to edit because they are out of regulation. The free edited content is modified by others, including attaching references and deleting content that is caught in copyright issues. Wikipedia develops as it takes care of these types of people.
Read more

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5

Discuss Reagle’s chapter 5 It is hard to understand this chapter. When I used the Wikipedia, I thought I don't need to group communication. Because the communication space is hidden, so I don't find it. I'm hard to find the communication space on Wikipedia. I think that the Wikipedia communication is not good at working in Korea. There are not many advisers on Korea Wikipedia. The Wiktionary definitions for consensus speak of “general agreement,” “without active opposition to the proposed course of action. I found it important for members to reach an agreement on Wikipedia. It's not an easy task, but I think it can produce a good results. So I think that's why Wikipedia exists. It can appear in a chat window, and go and talk to the other person's chat room. Perhaps it ends up as a personal versus personal matter, but I think that's also an agreement. If conversation does not take place, I don't think an agreement is reached either. Wiki...
Read more